Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Harley Quinn was enjoyable enough, some of the jokes didnt land but Margot Robbie is great in it and it looked like they were all enjoying themselves at least.
And regarding the others, I wasnt even thinking about originality, they were just the films I enjoyed more than the Snyder ones. I don't think WB has done much right at all regarding the shared universe, but I would expect some similarities regardless, they are superhero films after all.
Are Snyders films all that unique anyway? Aside from the look he likes to give his films, I don't see anything in them that's really all that original.
I think the comments in this thread show that Snyder certainly has a unique style of movie making that gets people very very animated.
If you watched pretty much any Marvel movie and then a Snyder comicbook movie you would know for sure they aren't made in the same mould. Different doesnt imply better, but there is no denying that Snyders take on things is vastly different to that of Marvel. Whedon going from Marvel to DC showed how different they are, you could pick out the parts in JL that Snyder would not of done. I think maybe Marvel run a much tighter ship with their directors then DC did with Snyder.
Captain Marvel is prob the closest OP hero Marvel have put on the big screen, would you compare that to Man of Steel ? As I've said, AM, Shazam and WW can all be compared to something marvel has offered, the lighter Tone being probably being the most obvious comparison.
It is not that Snyder is breaking new ground in movie making, at a very basic level I just enjoy the different aesthetics of his movies (ironic that this seems to really annoy some people). I also enjoy the general internal struggles/anguish that Snyders heros seem to suffer. You dont see it nearly as depressing in the Marvel ones. I know people do not like the bleakness of it, but I think its refreshing and when I go back to watch a marvel movie its nicely complimentary. Kind of like sour cream on spicy food.:D0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 34601
It's not a question of Synder getting people animated, I think that's a tiny bit unfair; cherished characters in pop culture engender a certain protectionism that's understandble, but I think this thread is all in good spirit - so far
To speak for myself, it's more that difference for its own sake, is not immediately a good thing. In this instance, Zack Synder deviates so much from what could be called ... I dunno. The core of characters, their essence, that I get annoyed that of the rare pearls of live-action adaptation, we get these outliers of representation, instead of the boilerplate. That Christopher Reeve remains the "best" version of Superman to this day, feels weird.
Batman's the easiest to parse IMO, because it's the most egregious in terms of those deviations (even if ironically, he's the most represented by on-screen adaptations). I hadn't even twigged at first, but that "Knightmare" scene from the trailer is the SECOND time Synder's using that setting. Why does that matter? Because Batman uses a gun in these scenes, and it's COOL. Or rather, you can really tell Synder thinks it's cool, because in BvS we had an elaborate scene of Batman gunning down monsters. Balletic slow-motion. Pew-pew-pew. Same with a batmobile scene, where he destroys/kills henchmen by the dozen.
So why does THAT matter? Because, while you can portray Batman in all sorts of ways, time periods etc - a fundamental lodestone of the character is that he doesn't kill - and he DOESN'T USE A GUN. It's literally the object that defines Bruce Wayne's entire life arc. Batman, boiled down to a one-line reduction, is a ninja-detective (heck, one Elseworld adaptation literally made him a ninja in feudal Japan) and seeing him run around gunning down folk is antithetical to whatever those foundational principles of the character.
So fine: the argument could be made that Synder's Batman is some kind of "fallen" hero, a desperate man who lost his way. But I don't buy that, because that reading runs contrary to the portrayal on-screen; at no point does the body of the film try to tell us this Batman has dropped the ball. Like I said, the aforementioned BvS scenes are not supposed to be shocking, they're meant to be cool. Alfred kinda chides Batman, but the script never once stops us to imply any actual problem with Batman.
And that's the core of what I find around with most of Synder's attempts to do characterful depth: his imagery often clashes violently with the intent of the character. All that brooding and angst is fine, were it not for the fact Synder wants to make it all look as cool and "music video"y as possible. Darkness. No parents. PewPewPew!
... and I just realised I've typed all this, and it's you Drumpot. The guy who likes, and consistently defends, BvS. so I feel this is entirely wasted bytes here cos I know we'll just agree to disagree again lol 0 -
It's not a question of Synder getting people animated, I think that's a tiny bit unfair; cherished characters in pop culture engender a certain protectionism that's understandble, but I think this thread is all in good spirit - so far To speak for myself, it's more that difference for its own sake, is not immediately a good thing. In this instance, Zack Synder deviates so much from what could be called ... I dunno. The core of characters, their essence, that I get annoyed that of the rare pearls of live-action adaptation, we get these outliers of representation, instead of the boilerplate. That Christopher Reeve remains the "best" version of Superman to this day, feels weird.
Batman's the easiest to parse IMO, because it's the most egregious in terms of those deviations (even if ironically, he's the most represented by on-screen adaptations). I hadn't even twigged at first, but that "Knightmare" scene from the trailer is the SECOND time Synder's using that setting. Why does that matter? Because Batman uses a gun in these scenes, and it's COOL. Or rather, you can really tell Synder thinks it's cool, because in BvS we had an elaborate scene of Batman gunning down monsters. Balletic slow-motion. Pew-pew-pew. Same with a batmobile scene, where he destroys/kills henchmen by the dozen.
So why does THAT matter? Because, while you can portray Batman in all sorts of ways, time periods etc - a fundamental lodestone of the character is that he doesn't kill - and he DOESN'T USE A GUN. It's literally the object that defines Bruce Wayne's entire life arc. Batman, boiled down to a one-line reduction, is a ninja-detective (heck, one Elseworld adaptation literally made him a ninja in feudal Japan) and seeing him run around gunning down folk is antithetical to whatever those foundational principles of the character.
So fine: the argument could be made that Synder's Batman is some kind of "fallen" hero, a desperate man who lost his way. But I don't buy that, because that reading runs contrary to the portrayal on-screen; at no point does the body of the film try to tell us this Batman has dropped the ball. Like I said, the aforementioned BvS scenes are not supposed to be shocking, they're meant to be cool. Alfred kinda chides Batman, but the script never once stops us to imply any actual problem with Batman.
And that's the core of what I find around with most of Synder's attempts to do characterful depth: his imagery often clashes violently with the intent of the character. All that brooding and angst is fine, were it not for the fact Synder wants to make it all look as cool and "music video"y as possible. Darkness. No parents. PewPewPew!
... and I just realised I've typed all this, and it's you Drumpot. The guy who likes, and consistently defends, BvS. so I feel this is entirely wasted bytes here cos I know we'll just agree to disagree again lol
2 thoughts come to mind:
1) Nothing from Snyder's past work indicates to me that this will be Citizen Kane, but it should be watchable enough.
2) Will Arnett's Lego Batman is a far more faithful (and better) adaption than the one from the DCEU.0 -
-
It's not a question of Synder getting people animated, I think that's a tiny bit unfair; cherished characters in pop culture engender a certain protectionism that's understandble, but I think this thread is all in good spirit - so far To speak for myself, it's more that difference for its own sake, is not immediately a good thing. In this instance, Zack Synder deviates so much from what could be called ... I dunno. The core of characters, their essence, that I get annoyed that of the rare pearls of live-action adaptation, we get these outliers of representation, instead of the boilerplate. That Christopher Reeve remains the "best" version of Superman to this day, feels weird.
Batman's the easiest to parse IMO, because it's the most egregious in terms of those deviations (even if ironically, he's the most represented by on-screen adaptations). I hadn't even twigged at first, but that "Knightmare" scene from the trailer is the SECOND time Synder's using that setting. Why does that matter? Because Batman uses a gun in these scenes, and it's COOL. Or rather, you can really tell Synder thinks it's cool, because in BvS we had an elaborate scene of Batman gunning down monsters. Balletic slow-motion. Pew-pew-pew. Same with a batmobile scene, where he destroys/kills henchmen by the dozen.
So why does THAT matter? Because, while you can portray Batman in all sorts of ways, time periods etc - a fundamental lodestone of the character is that he doesn't kill - and he DOESN'T USE A GUN. It's literally the object that defines Bruce Wayne's entire life arc. Batman, boiled down to a one-line reduction, is a ninja-detective (heck, one Elseworld adaptation literally made him a ninja in feudal Japan) and seeing him run around gunning down folk is antithetical to whatever those foundational principles of the character.
So fine: the argument could be made that Synder's Batman is some kind of "fallen" hero, a desperate man who lost his way. But I don't buy that, because that reading runs contrary to the portrayal on-screen; at no point does the body of the film try to tell us this Batman has dropped the ball. Like I said, the aforementioned BvS scenes are not supposed to be shocking, they're meant to be cool. Alfred kinda chides Batman, but the script never once stops us to imply any actual problem with Batman.
And that's the core of what I find around with most of Synder's attempts to do characterful depth: his imagery often clashes violently with the intent of the character. All that brooding and angst is fine, were it not for the fact Synder wants to make it all look as cool and "music video"y as possible. Darkness. No parents. PewPewPew!
... and I just realised I've typed all this, and it's you Drumpot. The guy who likes, and consistently defends, BvS. so I feel this is entirely wasted bytes here cos I know we'll just agree to disagree again lol
People felt the same with MoS. Superman engaged in a battle across Metropolis which would have resulted in thousands of deaths which ran counter to the expectations of the character, who would have been distraught at the huge loss of life. I recall one bit where Zod chucks a petrol truck at Superman, who just jumps over it and lets it explode behind him, destroying a multi story car park. Who knows how many people were in there!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
It's not a question of Synder getting people animated, I think that's a tiny bit unfair; cherished characters in pop culture engender a certain protectionism that's understandble, but I think this thread is all in good spirit - so far To speak for myself, it's more that difference for its own sake, is not immediately a good thing. In this instance, Zack Synder deviates so much from what could be called ... I dunno. The core of characters, their essence, that I get annoyed that of the rare pearls of live-action adaptation, we get these outliers of representation, instead of the boilerplate. That Christopher Reeve remains the "best" version of Superman to this day, feels weird.
Batman's the easiest to parse IMO, because it's the most egregious in terms of those deviations (even if ironically, he's the most represented by on-screen adaptations). I hadn't even twigged at first, but that "Knightmare" scene from the trailer is the SECOND time Synder's using that setting. Why does that matter? Because Batman uses a gun in these scenes, and it's COOL. Or rather, you can really tell Synder thinks it's cool, because in BvS we had an elaborate scene of Batman gunning down monsters. Balletic slow-motion. Pew-pew-pew. Same with a batmobile scene, where he destroys/kills henchmen by the dozen.
So why does THAT matter? Because, while you can portray Batman in all sorts of ways, time periods etc - a fundamental lodestone of the character is that he doesn't kill - and he DOESN'T USE A GUN. It's literally the object that defines Bruce Wayne's entire life arc. Batman, boiled down to a one-line reduction, is a ninja-detective (heck, one Elseworld adaptation literally made him a ninja in feudal Japan) and seeing him run around gunning down folk is antithetical to whatever those foundational principles of the character.
So fine: the argument could be made that Synder's Batman is some kind of "fallen" hero, a desperate man who lost his way. But I don't buy that, because that reading runs contrary to the portrayal on-screen; at no point does the body of the film try to tell us this Batman has dropped the ball. Like I said, the aforementioned BvS scenes are not supposed to be shocking, they're meant to be cool. Alfred kinda chides Batman, but the script never once stops us to imply any actual problem with Batman.
And that's the core of what I find around with most of Synder's attempts to do characterful depth: his imagery often clashes violently with the intent of the character. All that brooding and angst is fine, were it not for the fact Synder wants to make it all look as cool and "music video"y as possible. Darkness. No parents. PewPewPew!
... and I just realised I've typed all this, and it's you Drumpot. The guy who likes, and consistently defends, BvS. so I feel this is entirely wasted bytes here cos I know we'll just agree to disagree again lol
Its funny cause this same argument comes up in Star Wars newer movies and recent Alien movies where some fans of the universes were not happy with the direction taken. The prequels (that were disliked at the time) are now more popular because of the perception of what Disney are doing!
I loved Aliens and Star Wars originals, but was not as upset with the newer versions as some. In fact I really enjoyed the recent Alien movies and was sorry to hear there probe wont be another. I thought they were beautifully made and would of been much better received as individual standalone movies outside of the Alien Universe. This happens alot where good movies are panned because of the perceived effect on the wider universe, not because the movies are bad. Rogue one was a superb addition, the new trilogy was fine but not as disasterous as some have been going on about.
But the key ingredient in these difference of opinions is the perception of how the characters or movie is impacting the original idea or source material. Honestly, I don't care if Batman has a gun or if people die during a superman fight scene, it really makes no difference to me. I can watch the original Aliens movies and the newer ones make absolutely no difference to my enjoyment.
In terms of things looking cool, again it doesn't bother me if it actually looks cool. I suppose I just let myself be taken along for the ride with Snyder, don't really think about it too much. I don't get upset about what I think a director is trying to do, I prefer to try and enjoy movies and focus on what I like. Don't care what a director is going for , only thing I care about is if I enjoy a movie or not.
I really do not know what it is about Snyder Movies, I do not consider myself a fan who would die on the sword defending him, more I generally seem to enjoy his movies. Mind you, its happened where I didnt like his movies on first watch but they do tend to grow on me so I expect to not like his JL on first watch. Maybe Snyder is my "guilty pleasure" director.0 -
Batffleck was quite jarring to me and I don't agree with the best Batman ever stuff you see that's part of the Snyder Cut movement, but he clearly has dropped the ball and it's portrayed on screen.It's
So fine: the argument could be made that Synder's Batman is some kind of "fallen" hero, a desperate man who lost his way. But I don't buy that, because that reading runs contrary to the portrayal on-screen; at no point does the body of the film try to tell us this Batman has dropped the ball. Like I said, the aforementioned BvS scenes are not supposed to be shocking, they're meant to be cool. Alfred kinda chides Batman, but the script never once stops us to imply any actual problem with Batman.
He's full of guilt over his actions towards Superman and talks of how he now realizes men are still good, and I believe Snyder will pursue this line of thought in Justice League because Bruce (well allegedly this was the direction at one point) is meant to besuicidalover his guilt.
The problem is there was no buffer film before BvS where we were able to follow Bruce throughout his downward spiral to explain all the crazy sh1t he was doing in BvS. People need linear storytelling especially with such an extreme interpretation and Snyder should of realised this.
Trying to retroactively explain it away just doesn't work because people will always be cynical towards Snyder, and believe any depth or reasoning he adds to the character's actions are because of reaction to criticism rather than planning.
But hey, I saw a fan video recently with a supercut of Snyder talking about his Films in the DCEU. He speaks of wanting to make films where friends will argue with each other about how they each don't get it. The ****er has certainly achieved his wish anyway. You have to admit that his films are living long into the memory for better or worse compared to other films in the genre. 0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 34601
The White Wolf wrote: »Batffleck was quite jarring to me and I don't agree with the best Batman ever stuff you see that's part of the Snyder Cut movement, but he clearly has dropped the ball and it's portrayed on screen.
He's full of guilt over his actions towards Superman and talks of how he now realizes men are still good, and I believe Snyder will pursue this line of thought in Justice League because Bruce (well allegedly this was the direction at one point) is meant to besuicidalover his guilt.
The problem is there was no buffer film before BvS where we were able to follow Bruce throughout his downward spiral to explain all the crazy sh1t he was doing in BvS. People need linear storytelling especially with such an extreme interpretation and Snyder should of realised this.
Trying to retroactively explain it away just doesn't work because people will always be cynical towards Snyder, and believe any depth or reasoning he adds to the character's actions are because of reaction to criticism rather than planning.
But hey, I saw a fan video recently with a supercut of Snyder talking about his Films in the DCEU. He speaks of wanting to make films where friends will argue with each other about how they each don't get it. The ****er has certainly achieved his wish anyway. You have to admit that his films are living long into the memory for better or worse compared to other films in the genre.
To the last point, I think they live long in the memory because, to pivot back to Superman for a second, Synder insists on subverting the template of a character rarely shown "just" as he is in the first place. Creating this vacuum of desperation in fandom. Ok, Henry Cavill is only the 3rd live-action Superman (maybe four? Had George Reeves played him on film?), so there aren't many to choose from, but you gotta go back to the Richard Donner era to get a simple, heroic Superman. That's kinda nuts for such an iconic, global, character.
Brandon Routh's version is ... weird, coming off the accidental stalker and Deadbeat Dad, but I guess its heart was in the right place. The movie itself was curiously low-stakes and lacking scope. And even then, in many respects, the 70s films have aged pretty badly, both in terms of FX and their strangely childish tone - this was an era prior to the likes of Alan Moore, Frank Miller etc. etc.
Man of Steel came along during what can only be described as a Golden Age of Superhero Cinema: the anticipation was that we'd see a Superman, pure of heart, without that embarrassment over the material visible in the Christopher Reeves films - and all wrapped up with the mega-budget of a modern blockbuster. Nope. Synder instead wanted to make a film about Clark Kent struggling to cope with being Space Jesus, and to revel in demolishing both his home town and city. Even the infamous Nicholas Cage production from the 90s couldn't help deviating away from a simple "hero in a cape" mould - though that was down to John Peters' influence and fascination with spiders lol.
I don't really like Superman TBH, so can't speak as a "true" fan, but I imagine those that are must be gagging for a simple, big-budget adventure with Supes, saving the day and showing himself the paragon.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement